UNNEENKUTTY Vs. TALUK LAND BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE declarant is the revision petitioner.

(2.) THE only point that survives for consideration is this: Is the Taluk Land Board justified in treating the sale of the land measuring 37. 22 acres in extent, covered by document No. 2568/50; not on behalf of the petitioner also?

(3.) THIS court in the said decision has held that a purchase certificate obtained by one of the co-sharers enures to the benefit of the other co-share, also because the co-sharer who obtained the purchase certificate must be treated as a trustee holding the property on behalf of the other co-sharer also. THIS is what this court has held: "even though the other co-owner were not co-nominee parties to the purchase proceedings, as long as the certificates were obtained by a person who was only a co-owner, the rights obtained will certainly enure to the benefit of the other co-owners as well. THIS follows in view of the fact that a co-owner in possession will be treated as a trustee". THIS principle however would not apply to a case where a co-owner had alienated his share in the co-ownership property. It is relevant in this context to remember the well established principle of law in this regard. One co-sharer cannot sell more than his share of the co-ownership property se as to bind the other co-sharers. However, it is open to one co-sharer to authorise sale of his share in the co-ownership property and such authorisation may be either express or implied. It therefore follows that the sale by a co-owner of anything more than his share in the co-ownership property will not be binding on the other co-sharers unless it be that the other co-sharers have given their consent either express or implied, for such sale. The Madras ruling referred to above has expressed an identical view.